A Matter of Pretext

United Health Group is bringing in-home treatment directly to patients,

closing caregabs, identifying risks earlier and improving patient outcomes.

In 2025, patients received over 19 million home visits.

Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash commitment.

Bringing your business dreams to life takes heart and about a thousand decisions a day.

That's why Atlantic Union Bank's knowledgeable bankers are here for you.

With the right guidance and customized solutions to help you reach your business goals.

So whether you're planning your next move, upgrading your space,

or scaling to meet demand, we make sure your business is ready for what's ahead,

because we are big enough to support you, yet small enough to know you.

Atlantic Union Bank, anyway, you bank.

Hello and welcome to main justice.

I know exactly what day it is because I'm looking at someone

who's all outfitted in green, whose eyes appear green.

I always thought your eyes were blue, but anyway, they do look green.

I agree, because it's a Patrick's Day.

In case listeners are wondering, no, I am wearing green in honor of Andrew Weissman's birthday,

because isn't that what one does on Andrew Weissman's birthday?

Exactly, because it's a Patrick's Day too.

And I can't think of a better way than to celebrate with you and all of our listeners.

Yes, well, I'm sure you think of a few other ways,

but I'm going to stick with you.

Yeah, well, that's what I'm going to say.

Anyway, it is same Patrick's Day.

Welcome everyone.

That, of course, is Mary McCord.

I'm Andrew Weissman.

And yes, it is my birthday.

And also same Patrick's Day in that order, exactly.

And I will later in the day be, you know, toasting again,

as in honor of my podcast co-host, Anne St. Patrick.

I love it.

And I will be toasting just because I will also be drinking,

but that doesn't differentiate.

This different than the day.

What is it? Why is this night like, I don't know like any other night?

It's like, it's not.

It's not.

No, I hear you.

But as we always have, there's a lot of things to talk about,

and they're really interesting today in a lot of different ways.

What is on our dance card, Mary?

Well, you know, there really is something of a theme, I think, here,

which is retribution, which I realize is a theme that has been ongoing

since approximately January 20th of 2025.

But I realize that it really does unite all of our topics.

So we will start with Judge Bozberg here in the district court here

in the district of Columbia,

quashing the subpoena to the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Board Chair,

Jerome Tulles.

Just not that matters.

But really on the grounds, and we'll talk about it,

that they were issued for an improper purpose,

which was a retribution and retaliation purpose

to try to put pressure on Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve Board

to lower interest rates.

Mary, where did you find any evidence of that?

I mean, that must have been, he probably had to look really hard to figure out,

where could you come up with evidence that the president or anyone else

was acting in any sort of retributive way?

I mean, that must have been tough.

I believe Judge Bozberg called it a mountain of evidence,

but we'll get into that.

Yes, a mountain.

Yes.

Then we will dig into the disciplinary proceedings

that have been instituted against Ed Martin,

who was the interim US attorney in DC for a period of time.

Then he went on to be the head of the weaponization committee

at the Department of Justice and the pardon attorney.

He's no longer the head of the weaponization group,

but he is still the pardon attorney.

And this is a disciplinary proceeding that really dates back

to something that is actually quite close to me,

which was some early on in his 10 years,

the interim US attorney.

He sent a number of sort of threatening and retaliatory letters

to the dean of Georgetown Law saying,

if you're teaching DEI at the law school,

then we will never hire as an intern,

a fellow or an assistant US attorney,

any person from Georgetown Law.

And last up in more retribution and retaliation,

we will talk about the anthropic matter.

This is something we have not yet discussed on this podcast.

It's something I've been following closely.

I did just sign on to an Amicus brief, actually,

that is on behalf of a number of former national security officials.

And this is fascinating because of the dramatic,

dramatic moves that the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth,

took and the president with regard to essentially,

it's like the law from Blacklisting,

really Blacklisting and the anthropic from doing any business

with the federal government,

not just the Department of Defense,

and with any other contractors or businesses

that do business with the federal government.

And this is more First Amendment retaliation,

more violation of due process.

So there is really a theme here.

Yeah, can I just give a shout out to that one,

which is like people should really stay tuned for that discussion,

because when you hear about why anthropic resisted

what the government wanted,

it really has to do with things you're going to care about.

So it is really shocking,

and I'm glad we're going to be able to talk about it.

I also wanted to remind people of something

that Mary, you and I talked about,

but it relates in many ways to the second segment

about Ed Martin, and it is a bar disciplinary complaint.

And we spent some time last week

talking about DOJ,

have proposed rule, emphasis on proposed rule,

to essentially give the Department of Justice a kill switch

to turn off those pending investigations

by saying they can't go forward until DOJ acts first.

The reason I'm just doing this shout out

is you have until April 6th,

April 6th, if you think that this rule is one

that you disagree with, the public is entitled to weigh in on that.

And so we're going to put again in our show notes,

the federal register hosting,

where you can read what the proposed rule is

and where you can also file online.

You can file your position on it.

And so just wanted to flag that again

because there's a short time span

in which you have to voice your views.

And we'll come back and talk a little bit more about that.

I think when we do talk about the Ed Martin proceeding

because I'll be interested to see

whether the Attorney General tries to kill this.

But shall we jump in?

Yes, Emery, let's talk about once again,

Judge Bozberg and just to quickly tee it up,

Judge Bozberg had before him a motion

by the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve Board, that's right.

Not to be confused with the Federal register

that we just talked about.

The Federal Reserve had received two grand jury subpoenas

issued by the DC US Attorney's Office for data.

And they made a motion to quash those subpoenas.

And can we just remind people what they wanted?

They supposedly sought information

about the renovations being done

to the Federal Reserve Building,

which have been ongoing for years now.

There were plans for them

and then the costs continued escalate as costs do

as somebody who did very modest work on my own.

How's a few years ago?

It's like, while you're in the middle of the project,

everything skyrockets on you.

Mary, I was going to raise that with you

because I was thinking that suggested to me

that you were committing a crime, right?

I thought that there was real reason to look into that.

Yeah.

So anyway, yeah, they were basically saying

because there were cost overruns

that gives them somehow a reason to think

that there was some crime on the part of the Federal Reserve.

And we'll get into the standard

for issuing a grand jury subpoena

and what the judge ruled here.

But that's what DC wanted.

The Federal Reserve moves to quash saying

that this is all, wait for it,

protect your all to use a word

that the chief justice used in the tariff decision

and that this is just all of the sod of retribution

because you want to have Mr. Powell

step down, which the president has been saying for years.

And so that's sort of teed up this issue

of what are the facts of what is the law

that governs whether this is a proper grand jury subpoena.

And so how did Judge Bowsberg deal with this?

Yeah, well, I think his first paragraph

is pretty clear on what he thinks about this.

But just so people know,

you do not have to have probable cause

of a crime to issue a subpoena,

a grand jury to issue a subpoena.

You do have to open a grand jury investigation.

So when I was a prosecutor, when you were a prosecutor,

we couldn't just sit there at our desk and say,

gosh, I think maybe Jerome Powell committed a crime.

I'm going to dash off some subpoenas

that request information.

And if he doesn't comply, he could be in contempt.

No, you have to open a investigation

in front of the grand jury.

And then you issue the subpoenas

under the auspices of that grand jury investigation.

There doesn't have to be probable cause.

There has to be at least some reason

to believe there might be a crime being committed.

And what Judge Bowsberg finds here,

just to put the bottom line up front,

is that these were issued for an improper purpose

with no evidence whatsoever

supporting that any crimes have been committed.

Not fraud in these renovations

and not any misstatement or false statement,

I should say made by Mr. Powell

when he testified about these renovations

really was testifying about a lot of other things.

But this is how Judge Bowsberg

starts the opinion in the first paragraph.

And these are quotes.

Quote, Jerome Tulate Powell has done it again,

exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point.

Know who these are quotes from?

None other than our president.

He is too late and actually too angry, too stupid

and too political to have the job of Fed Chair.

He is costing our country trillions of dollars.

Put another way, Tulate is a total loser

and our country is paying the price.

That was a truth social post from July 31st last year.

And here's what Judge Bowsberg says after writing that.

That is one of at least 100 statements

that the president or his deputies

have made attacking the chair of the Federal Reserve

and pressuring him to lower interest rates

and he adds some more.

So is this?

Tulate Jerome Powell is costing our country

hundreds of billions of dollars.

He is truly one of the dumbest

and most destructive people in government.

Tulate sent American disgrace.

That is from June 19th, 2025.

And what Judge Bowsberg then says is perhaps giving all of this,

it comes as no surprise that the DC US Attorney's Office

recently opened a criminal investigation into Powell

and served to subpoenas on the Federal Reserve Board

seeking records that we just discussed Andrew.

And here's the questions that Judge Bowsberg said

he needs to answer.

Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose?

The court finds that they did not.

There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas

dominant if not sole purpose is to harass

and pressure Powell either to yield to the president

or to resign and make way for a Fed chair who will.

On the other side of the scale,

the government has offered no evidence whatsoever

that Powell committed any crime

other than just leasing the president.

The court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications

for these subpoenas are mere pretext, as you said, pretext.

So two quick points.

One, the leading Supreme Court case on this,

which of course Judge Bowsberg cites as he would,

is a case decided decades and decades ago

called R Enterprises, where the court said,

as you noted, Mary, that the standard

for issuing a proper grand jury subpoena is quite low.

You don't need problem cause.

The whole point is that you're entitled to investigate

to develop probable cause.

So you really need good faith and some factual basis

to suggest why this is a proper inquiry.

It can include looking to see whether something wrong happened

or even to share that nothing happened.

In other words, that there's innocence

that something that has some suspicion

you're trying to dispel it.

But and here is where there's really clear law

to support what Judge Bowsberg did here,

which is that our enterprise's case says

that you cannot be using a grand jury subpoena

either as a fishing expedition or to harass somebody.

And if this isn't harassment,

and if that statement means anything in the Supreme Court,

that you cannot issue a grand jury subpoena to harass,

then this is like the platonic ideal of that.

And to me, that is really the gist of it,

which is that's exactly what the court finds

using Donald Trump's own words against him.

And to your point, Mary, the way he cites

what Donald Trump said over and over again,

he says on page 19, and I'm gonna quote,

in some, the president spent years essentially asking

if no one will rid him of his troublesome bed chair.

That is of course a paraphrase of the famous quote

that was attributed to King Henry II,

where the spec to Archbishop Thomas Beckett,

it is so apt because you can take from that sort of

the equating of Donald Trump to thinking

that he can act like a king and including Thomas Beckett,

which is that the Archbishop was independent of the king,

people remember from their English history

that at that time the church was independent in England

and the Archbishop reported to the Pope

and so this idea that you have this tension

between a king and an independent body

and you have the king saying basically over and over again,

this is what he wants and orchestrating it by saying,

well no one would be of this troublesome priest.

It seemed like such an apt way of describing

what we're going through and particularly poignant

that it relates to this idea that and people have talked about

and we've had no king's demonstration throughout.

So I just found this such an interesting opinion.

One final point is I was listening to Jeanine Pureau,

the US Attorney in DC, I was listening to her press conference

right afterwards, she has made a motion

to reconsider, we'll see what happens with that.

But during her press conference, she said,

and I just wanna make sure, I'm sure she just misspoke.

I really am not saying she did this intentionally,

but I don't know, but she said that the district judge,

Bosberg said that the government needed probable cause

and she said, that's wrong, we don't need probable cause.

And I went back and reread the decision this morning

and he says the opposite.

That's right.

He says, he sites our enterprises and says,

you do not need probable cause.

That's right.

And so I just wanna make sure people understand

that she got that wrong, he does cite the law correctly

in terms of the Supreme Court case

or there are lots of lower court cases about whether

the improper purpose has to be the sole purpose

or whether it should just be sort of the but for purpose

or primary purpose and it goes through all of that.

This is a case we can continue watching.

I have to say, I'm skeptical that this is a worthy appeal,

not a bad faith appeal, but I just think the facts here

are so terrible for the government

where the president has laid out the purpose

over and over again according to the district court.

And as I said, unless the Supreme Court's gonna retract

what they said in our enterprises,

I don't see how this case isn't the poster child

for harassment.

Yeah, and you know, we'll see, right now you said,

the US Attorney's Office has moved to reconsider.

They're saying that Judge Bozberg

used the wrong legal standard and he got some facts wrong.

And then if he denies that, then we'll see

if they note an appeal.

They have not done that yet.

Last two points on this, one of the things

that Judge Bozberg also points out is that

the president doesn't even have any authority

to set interest rates or to tell the board what to do.

And so to use this lever of a criminal investigation

to try to pressure the Federal Reserve Board

and its chair to do something

that the president can't do directly,

like you can't do that either, right?

You can't use your leverage to pressure.

And on the point about no evidence whatsoever,

I really thought this line was a good one worth repeating.

And this is by a judge who, by the way,

he and I were prosecutors in the same office for many years.

He knows what's required for a subpoena

because he opened grand jury investigations

just like I did for a long time.

And remember, there were two alleged basis.

One is to investigate fraud.

One is to investigate whether Jerome Powell lied to Congress.

And here's what Judge Bozberg says about the latter.

Searching for any reason to suspect

that Powell might have lied to Congress,

the only one the court can describe

is that he testified at a hearing.

The government might as well investigate him from mail fraud

because someone once saw him send a letter.

That's good.

That's a good line.

That is a good line.

One of the things that's sort of an interesting intersection

of politics with law is the Federal chair

is very popular and his independence is very popular.

And at some point, the Federal chair, his term ends

and it's relatively soon

and they're going to want to have their nominee

go through and you're already hearing people,

Republicans saying that if this is going to be lingering,

they're not going to go forward.

And in other words, it's one of the few times

you see Congress saying,

you know, we have a role here and we have leverage.

That's right.

And so if you're doing this to pressure him,

we can pressure back.

That's right.

So that's where there's an interesting connection

between the three branches of government

all at work here.

So stay tuned.

OK, much more to come on that.

Shall we take a break and come back

and talk about Ed Merton?

If we must.

OK.

OK.

OK.

OK.

OK.

OK.

Much more to come on that.

Shall we take a break and come back

and talk about Ed Merton?

If we must.

All.

A trusted professional, ready to help.

Bringing peace of mind to four and a half million homeowners

nationwide.

For plans starting at just $4.99 a month,

go to homesterve.com.

That's homesterve.com.

Not available everywhere.

Most plans range between $4.99 to $11.99 a month

your first year.

Turn supply uncovered repairs.

Shipping, building, admin, road, marketing.

You're managing all the things.

So why waste time sending important documents

the old fashioned way?

Mail and ship when you want, how you want with stamps.com.

Print postage on-demand 24-7 and schedule pickups from your office or home.

Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping.

That's why over 1 million small businesses trust Stamps.com.

Go to Stamps.com and use code podcast to try Stamps.com risk-free for 60 days.

This message is brought to you by AppleCart.

AppleCart members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases, wherever they shop.

This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything.

Like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place, or a latte from the corner coffee shop.

Apply for AppleCart in the wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes.

Subject to credit approval.

AppleCart issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch.

Terms and more at AppleCart.com.

Mary, I was reading the disciplinary complaint filed against Ed Martin.

Just to be clear, it's just to complain to me, and it's just allegations.

Ed Martin has a specification of charges, it's called.

Right, and so Ed Martin gets due process.

It may be that they're found, it may be that not found.

And then even if they're found, there are all sorts of things that can be done in terms of.

He doesn't mean he's disbarred.

There are a whole range of things that they could do.

So I just want to make sure we're discussing now just something that the disciplinary committee

has said are specifications that he has to answer.

But I was reading it and I was thinking,

huh, Mary's going to know all about this because as you said,

it seems to relate to one of your many day jobs.

Yes.

So what's the issue here?

What are the specifications?

It seems to be two things that they're concerned about.

So there are two charges in this.

And the first one I find really, really interesting because normally when the disciplinary council,

and that is the person kind of like the prosecutor of disciplinary proceedings,

and his name here is Hamilton P Fox.

He goes by Bill Fox.

He's been disciplinary council and DC for some time now.

And usually it is more common that you will see a specification of charges

that are alleging violations of particular rules of professional responsibility.

So every lawyer has to, if they want to practice law,

they have to pass a bar exam and become a member of the bar in the state where they practice.

And then they have to follow the rules of professional responsibility

or they could be disciplined.

That could be a variety of sanctions all the way up to losing their bar license.

And of course, we also have a proponent,

the point you were making about the new post rule from the Department of Justice.

There is also a Congressional passed statute that says,

Department of Justice lawyers,

even though you might practice law in multiple different states,

you have to comply with the professional responsibility rules of each state that you practice in,

not just like the DC rules even when you're practicing in California.

Utah would have you.

So what's different about the first charge here is it's not actually alleging a violation

of a specific rule of professional responsibility.

It's alleging that Mr. Martin's conduct in sending letters to the dean of the law school,

making threats to not hire anyone who went to Georgetown law

on the basis of what is being taught at the law school.

He alleged the law school of teaching DEI.

I can tell you there's not a course called DEI.

So I really don't know what he's talking about.

But that, you know, that is something that the law school and any private school

has a first amendment right to teach what they're teaching.

So this first count is saying essentially that was so unconstitutional

that this is a violation of Mr. Martin's oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America.

And therefore is grounds for discipline pursuant to the rules that allow for discipline.

So it's interesting because it's not saying you violated rule 3.5 B, right?

It's saying you did something unconstitutional.

Right. It does make good sense.

Yeah, totally.

I mean, because essentially it's like going for the big picture

and it's not like, oh, you co-mingled client funds with personal funds.

That's one of the big no-nose.

But here, just to give you a sample of what Mary's talking about, here's a quote,

acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government,

he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint

the teaching and promotion of DEI.

He demanded that Georgetown law relinquish its free speech and religious rights

in order to continue to obtain a benefit, employment opportunities for its students.

Because one of the things that he said was,

if you don't change this sort of very unspecified thing,

which is somehow promoting DEI or teaching DEI,

we're not going to hire any student

as if the student would just be the recipient of it.

So I mean, talk about attacking somebody who, under his view,

the students are the victim of this.

And yet he's going to use them as pawns.

Punish them.

Right. So anyway, so that sort of specification, one, or is Mary, you like to say,

that's thing one.

Yes, thing one.

I love that. I've been trying to try and pay.

So what's thing two?

So thing two is a much more traditional charge of violating specific professional responsibility rules.

And this has to do with the fact that once the disciplinary council opened a complaint,

open investigation, it sent a letter to Mr. Martin advising him of this

and asking him to respond to the investigation.

And rather than respond, you know what, Mr. Martin did.

I can take a guess and X partay letter.

That means he did not copy our disciplinary council.

He just sent a letter directly to the chief judge and the senior judges of the district

of Columbia Court of Appeals.

And you might be saying, what do they have to do with it?

Well, ultimately, if disciplinary council brings charges and proves those charges,

before the board of professional responsibility for district of Columbia, those can be appealed.

If there's a binding of a violation and disciplinary rules, those can be appealed to the DC Court

of Appeals.

So essentially what Mr. Martin did is he's like, I'm just going to bypass this whole process

of disciplinary proceedings.

I'm going to go straight to the chief judge of the DC Court of Appeals.

Wait, wait, he's going to do that, but he's not telling the other side.

Bar council.

I mean, it's one thing to do it, which is already you're not supposed to do it.

But it's like another to do it, but not tell your adversary.

I mean, that's like a huge no no to do it that way.

And also just listen to what he says in that letter, according to these allegations,

I don't have the letter itself in that letter.

Mr. Martin stated that he would not be responding to disciplinary council's inquiry.

He complained about disciplinary council's uneven behavior.

That's a quote.

And he requested, quote, a face-to-face meeting with all of you, meaning the judges,

to discuss this matter and find a way forward.

He copied White House council for informational purposes because of the importance of getting

this issue addressed.

And that's a quote.

So he's like, let me bypass this.

Let me go straight to the chief judge and the senior judges of the District of Columbia

Court of Appeals, ask them to find a way forward and copy White House council, who is

utterly nothing to do with anything that has to do with disciplinary proceedings against

a member of the bar.

And by the way, it gets worse and I know you're going there.

But if you think that's bad enough, what happens next according to the specification?

Well, the chief judge immediately responds like, we will not be meeting you ex-partate.

Any concerns you have should be raised through the regular procedures that are established

by the court to govern the disciplinary process.

He ignored that too.

And this time, the chief judge, though, did copy disciplinary council, Hamilton Box.

So he at least was able to know that the chief judge did, yes, the chief judge, right?

The court did.

And then he tries again, this time, he sends another letter to the chief judge.

This time he does copy disciplinary council, complaining about the way a follow-up inquiry

had come to him because Hamilton Box hadn't known that he had appealed to the chief judge.

So Hamilton Box had sent a follow-up inquiry.

And this time he asks the chief judge, quote, that you not only suspend Mr. Box immediately

to investigate his conduct, but also to dismiss the case against me because of his prejudicial

conduct.

Chief judge again responds the next day, reiterating what she said previously that he needs to raise

any concerns by following the court's procedures.

So here we have the allegations being direct violations of DC bar disciplinary rules, which

is rule 3.5b, communicating exparte with the judge during a proceeding and less authorized

to do so by law or court order.

And rule 8.4d, engaging in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice.

So what will happen now is presumably it's going to take the normal course, which is that

Mr. Martin will put in his side of the story and Mr. Fox will go forward and substantiate

or not what he says happened.

And then it will be adjudicated.

And then there as you noted, there is an appeal process.

This is why going back to the point about the federal register and the proposed rule is

that if Pambondi's rule goes into effect, she would be able to say, wait a second, full

stop, we're going to investigate this first.

And we'll get back to you when we are done.

That may be when health freezes over, but you were precluded from going forward until

we finish our investigation with no promise whatsoever as to when that could be.

So here's a good example of what could be killed.

Now again, by the way, the Department of Justice could act quickly.

I mean, that's one option.

But the issue is under the proposed rule, they're not required to when there's no set

time period.

It's not like it says the Department of Justice has 60 days.

And if they haven't issued an decision within 60 days, the state can go forward.

That would have been one option.

But this is basically an on off switch that's being proposed.

Well, sort of, right?

That's what I think they want people to think.

But technically, the rule just says the attorney general can request that the state bars

pause its investigation while DOJ investigates.

But to your point, there's a little stick in there too.

It says, should the relevant bar disciplinary authorities refuse the attorney general's

request, the department shall take appropriate action to enforce this regulation or to prevent

the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the attorney general's review of the

allegations.

So that's where the on off would come.

But the question is, what will that be?

And obviously, this rule has not yet gone into effect with respect to the proceedings

in DC.

So my question and what I am waiting to see is, will the attorney general take whatever

she thinks is appropriate action to try to prevent the DC bar disciplinary counsel from

going forward with these proceedings?

And what will that look like?

Will she go into court and try to get some sort of injunction or what will happen here?

And maybe, maybe nothing.

Yeah, it may be nothing, but I view it very much like going forward with the law firm

executive orders after that flip flop, which is, this is just not a good look.

The judges are all aware of this process.

They're all aware of what the law firm executive orders did and meant.

These are for people who are in the field, in the business, they particularly understand

the dynamics here and what is going on.

So this is going to be interesting to see whether they do have a sort of retake no quarter

to use a recent phrase by Secretary of Defense Hegseth, aka Secretary of War.

And this is one where it'll be interesting to see whether they show a modicum of restraint

because this is one where you can imagine if they don't.

What's that expression, which is pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered?

So before we move on to our last segment on Anthropic, I do want to, while we are talking

about attorneys at the Department of Justice, mentioned the desperation of the Department

of Justice to hire prosecutors into the U.S. attorney's offices.

It is just, we've just seen that the department has gotten rid of its waived, I should say,

its policy of requiring newly hired federal prosecutors to have at least one year of experience

practicing law before they become what a prosecutor, a federal prosecutor.

Other than the honors program, I mean, there's a special system.

Although honestly, the honors program, we certainly didn't have it in my U.S. attorney's

office.

I don't think it the main justice that was something and you could have people straight

out of law school, but for assistant U.S. attorneys, but it was a tiny group.

Yeah, I don't think we had them, but maybe you all did.

But those are usually people who are oftentimes people who have already interned in the office

and things like that, at least that was the case at main justice.

And you know, people may have different views about whether you should have more than

one year or not.

I mean, I certainly think before you wield a power as significant as it is to be a federal

prosecutor again, you don't wield it by yourself.

You have supervisors, et cetera, and you have to have grand jury and diet cases and things

like that.

But still, it's a pretty incredible power.

And I think that most people would think it'd be something that lawyers with a little bit

more experience should be the ones.

And just one single year, but also what does it say about the department where usually

there's a wait list to get in, and it's very hard to get these jobs that you have to

lower the standard to not even having a single year.

I'm reminded having worked at the FBI that there was a premium on having people with

substantial work experience before they became a federal agent precisely because the

amount of authority that you have, and you want that seasoned adult judgment.

And then there also was a long period of training that went in.

And we're hearing that that across the board is getting cut by the Trump administration.

So this idea that we're just going to snatch people off the street, I'm using hyperbole,

but this idea that you're not finding people who have that level of maturity and experience

and life experience, and then subjecting them to rigorous training because you know what,

these people, whether it's FBI agents, whether it's prosecutors, have substantial ability

to both promote people's rights, but also to infringe on people's rights.

That's right.

And so I used to always say the hard part of the job was not developing proof that you

could use to propose an indictment to a grand jury.

It was deciding whether it was something that is the proper course after you've developed

that.

It was like, there are always two parts to that.

It's not just do you have the evidence.

It's now that you have the evidence, what is the right thing to do?

What is the right way to treat this person?

The exercise of judgment.

And there's just a host of factors, and this is like one advantage of aging is that you

can even look back at my younger self and say, you know what, I know a lot more now,

and I have a lot more experience to understand those factors.

And that's what you want in the department and at all levels.

There's so many things about this that is so bad.

And the key here also to people not forget is, what does it say about the department

that you have to do this?

And the minister to use attorney's offices is a good example where people were just voting

with their feet.

And it's been decimated, but it's true at main justice and lots of other US attorney's

offices because of the actions of this administration in a way that you do not see in any other

administration.

And it is not a policy issue.

This is nothing to do with the policies of a particular president.

You were seeing people vote with their feet because of the lawlessness that they're

experiencing.

Yeah.

And the suspension of this requirement makes it clear, and this is a quote, it was implemented

due to an exigent hiring need for attorneys across the department.

When I was in the US attorney's office, we had people who had been partners in law firms

who were trying to become a USA's.

And the other thing that a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement about this is that the

attorney general and deputy attorney general are proud to empower young and passionate

prosecutors and offer attorneys at every level, the opportunity to invest their talents

into keeping their communities safe, including from the predators, the previous administration

welcomed with open arms, right?

The first part of that sentence, okay, fine.

And then you got to just add that little dig there.

Well, guess what?

Plenty of people were willing to be prosecutors under previous administrations, not just

the Biden one, but Trump one, Obama, George W. Bush, and back and back and back.

So it's very sad to see, but I'm almost past my morning for the Department of Justice

and into like, can we get to a point where it can get built back again?

But that's going to take a little bit of while.

So let's take a break and come back and talk about the administration's actions with

respect to an AI company that's most well-known for developing what's called Claude, which

is very, very well used in popular, it's like Chad GPT, and that was created by anthropic

and anthropic has now brought two different types of lawsuits based on what the administration

has done.

Let's take a break and come back and talk about the allegations by anthropic against the

administration.

Let's do it.

When it comes to what your family eats and drinks, you know your choices matter.

You are the expert because you know what fits your life.

And getting it right starts with good information.

That's why America's beverage companies are sharing more information about our ingredients

at GoodToNoFacts.org.

No spin, no judgements, just the facts straight from the experts for more than 140 beverage

ingredients.

Visit GoodToNoFacts.org

Life's busy.

Don't let banking slow you down, whether you're paying bills, setting savings goals, or

just splitting the check.

Atlantic Union Bank makes managing your money easier.

With helpful people and user friendly tools, we make sure banking with us fits you.

Call, visit us online, or drop into an Atlantic Union bank branch today.

Atlantic Union Bank, anyway you bank.

What do the steam engine, electricity, and AI have in common?

They don't just change how we work, they transform entire economies.

Where the internet lives is an award-winning podcast from Google about the unseen world

of data centers.

This season, we're going inside the AI revolution.

From farmers using AI to analyze soil data, to researchers discovering new medicines,

a new era of AI innovation is here.

Listen to where the internet lives wherever you get your podcast.

Welcome back, Los Andrew, indicated before the break, Anthropic is an AI company.

In fact, what it describes itself as in its complaint, it's lawsuit that it recently

filed one of the two lawsuits, is Anthropic is a leading frontier in artificial intelligence

developer whose flagship family of AI models is known as Claude.

Anthropic was founded based on the belief that AI technologies should be developed and

used in a way that maximizes positive outcomes for humanity.

And its primary animating principle is that the most capable artificial intelligence systems

should also be the safest and most responsible.

It brings the suit because the federal government has retaliated against it for expressing that

principle.

Now, I've been listening to a lot about Anthropic to learn more and more about it.

I'm going to take that as a sincere description.

Other people may have different views, but that is the viewpoint that they are expressing.

What happened, Andrew, that they got retaliated against?

They have been doing business with the Department of Defense and Department of Defense has been

using their Claude in many of its different programs for some time now and has praised

how excellent their product is.

Yes.

Anthropic has substantial contracts with the government.

It, in fact, also is one of the companies and it represents that it is the only company

that is doing work on a national security level with top secret clearance.

And the issue here is that Anthropic refused in two respects.

It refused to allow the United States government to use it for two things, and this is what

I think is key.

All right.

I'm just going to read a little bit of how it's described because I want people to think

about why would the government want to use it for these purposes?

That's why I think everyone should care not just for the legal issue, but what it says

about what the government wants to do with this Claude suite of tools that Anthropic

has created.

So Anthropic has these contracts and said you can use them for many, many purposes, but

not two.

And here's the first one.

First, Anthropic did not develop Claude to deploy lethal autonomous warfare without

human oversight.

Let me just repeat that lethal autonomous warfare without human oversight.

This is what it says about Claude's abilities and who should know better than Anthropic.

Claude has not been trained or tested for that use.

At least at present, Claude is simply not capable of performing such tasks responsibly

without human oversight.

And so they were unwilling to say you can use it for that, but that's what the government

wants to do.

That's thing one, as Mary would say.

And to just boil it down, they say, this is a company saying this about its own flagship

AI product.

Anthropic currently does not have confidence.

For example, that Claude would function reliably or safely if used to support lethal autonomous

warfare.

So Claude can make mistakes, right?

And we're talking about lethal warfare.

So think one, just think to yourself, wouldn't the government be the first to say, well,

we don't want to use it for that?

It's one thing to say we want to use it if it can work that way.

That would already be controversial.

But this is the company saying it hasn't been tested and it's not reliable.

Okay, it gets worse.

Yes.

Second, Anthropic is unwilling to agree to Claude's use for mass surveillance of Americans.

Surveillance conducted using AI, artificial intelligence, poses significantly greater potential

to make mistakes and to amplify the effects of any mistakes than traditional techniques,

allowing Claude to be used to enable the department to surveil US persons at scale and

to field weapon systems that may kill without human oversight, would therefore be inconsistent

with Anthropic's founding purpose and public commitments.

These important restrictions simply reflect what Anthropic knows to be true about Claude's

limitations.

So the second thing is they don't want this to be a vehicle for mass surveillance of Americans.

And some of you may be thinking about images that you've seen of ICE agents when they are

going up to people, holding their phones and instruments up to people's faces and gathering

data about those people and facial images, just create this sort of mass surveillance.

And this complaint, and we'll put a link to this complaint that's been filed in California

in the show notes, you can read more about Claude's allegations about its own assessment

about what Claude can do and more importantly what it cannot do.

And so that's the gist of this, is that when the company said we're not doing this, what

happened?

The president and the secretary of defense just basically said we're going to block

less you and spoke out of both sides of their mouth.

At one point they're saying, well, you're so valuable, we really need you.

And the other they said, no, no, no, you're a total security risk totally made up.

It's very similar to the Bowesburg decision because it's like it's totally protectoral

that we're saying, oh, we're going to say that you actually are a supply chain risk

and there's a national security interest here in nobody, nobody doing business with you.

And so you need to be shunned and stoned to continue by sort of Henry the second thing.

And so basically taking all of this retaliatory action and saying that the United States government

is going to use any and all tools, very similar to what they did with law firms and we see

with respect to the media, I mean, in all sorts of ways, it's this bludgeoning people

and anthropic is fighting back.

And the one thing, Mary, I'm really interested to hear your views on because I saw in the

docket sheet, there are a lot of amicus.

Now there's friends of the court who are filing or saying they're going to file.

If you could also talk a little about that because I was really interested in that because

with the law firms, one of the things that people noticed is that they weren't all sticking

together.

They didn't form a sort of NATO of law firms or a NATO of universities when one gets

attacked, they need to understand that they're but for the grace of God, go, I.

And what's happening withinthropic in terms of the kind of support they're getting in

their field?

Well, you've probably looked at the list more recently than I have to see of all the amicus,

but I know there have been a number filed.

Like I said, I signed on to one on behalf of former national security officials and it

is this outrage over a number of things.

So and also deeply felt that national security is important.

But I want to be clear that people understand the reason for this retaliation is because

the anthropic would not bend to the will of the president and the department of defense

and it's made clear in the things that the president said.

So for example, when they hit this loggerheads, here is what President Trump did posting

again on social media.

He directed every federal agency in the United States government to immediately cease all use

of anthropics technology.

He derided anthropic as a out of control and quote radical left woke company of quote

left wing nut jobs, right?

What does this sound like?

What does this sound like?

Out of control is it's like everything's projection.

Yes.

I mean out of control is a perfect, perfect description of the administration.

That's so right.

He accused anthropic of selfishness and of making a disastrous mistake.

Anthropic better get their act together at the president threatened or he would use the

full power of the presidency to make them comply.

Okay.

This is just out in the open, right?

So back to our theme and I think maybe this should be the title of today's episode pretext,

right?

The notion that anthropic is actually what's called a supply chain risk.

That because they are, which is normally that designation, in fact, according to anthropic

has never been given to a US based company supply chain risk means a foreign adversary.

It's either a foreign company or there's a foreign adversary that controls that company

and therefore having that company have access to the crown jewels, right?

Prop secret national defense information that has to do with our war fighting capability

and has to do with our intelligence collection capabilities that having some foreign adversary

in the supply chain for that is obviously a risk having anthropic who you've already

been working with for years and to your point that when the government was debating with

anthropic about these usage limits that anthropic wanted, they said, well, we might just

take the whole thing under the Defense Production Act and force you to provide these services

or we might call you a supply chain risk.

Again, you cannot have both of those at the same time.

You're set your risk that we want to use you more.

Exactly, right?

So it's so obviously contextual, right?

And so those who are coming out in support of anthropic are noting not only the first

amendment retaliation for this viewpoint expressed by the company, right, that our products

should not be used for these two purposes.

And we've said and anthropics as we've said over and over again, we will work with you

on lots of other things, everything else, just these two things we will not.

So first member retaliation do process violations because they are being deprived then, not

just of the ability to contract with the United States for this one contract.

But the black listing means when they were designated a supply chain risk, the Secretary

of Defense also put out an order that said no company that wants to do business with

the federal government can do any business with anthropics.

So that is the shunning and the stoning, right?

That is the death knell for a company.

You're saying when a lot of your business, not everything, but is doing government contracts,

right?

And you now not only can't do those government contracts, but you can't even do business

with anybody else who does a government contract.

That is really just an absolute death knell for a company.

Now I want to be very clear about something in these lawsuits and it's interesting.

There are two because one, they're bringing challenging under the Constitution, under

the Administrative Procedures Act and other different statutory authorities that all of

these orders, right?

The supply chain designation, the orders that the federal government doesn't do business

with them, et cetera.

They're bringing a case in the district court in California making those challenges.

And then separately, they have a petition for review made directly to the DC circuit

because by statute, the DC circuit has jurisdiction over the review of a decision to designate

a supply chain risk under what's called the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security

Act of 2018.

So it's interesting to me because the lawsuits both make the constitutional arguments.

They're in two different places.

I'm not super familiar with the way this area of laws works.

And at some point, you wonder, well, who is going to go first?

Is this DC circuit going to go first?

Is the district court going to go first?

But all of that is just the me leading up to the point about what they're not asking for.

They are not saying Department of Defense, you have to continue this contract with us.

They say, look, in the normal rules of procurement, if there's a problem with the contract and

we're not going to fulfill the terms you want, you can end this contract with us.

They're not seeking that they have the contract.

They're seeking that they not be barred from doing any other business with any other agency.

They're seeking that they not be designated the supply chain risk that, again, not only

keeps them from doing business with anyone who does business with the government, but also

is a horrible hit to their reputation, right?

And to financing their investors, et cetera.

But that's one so much like the Boasburg decision, which is good luck to the government

and like how they're going to prove that.

In other words, I'm fascinated to see what they're going to say factually, because here

this is another one where it's just the president saying, well, no one rid me here of this

troublesome AI company, but this again, it's worth remembering what there's both the

bludgeoning part, but like for what?

Yes.

And that to me is why this just marries sort of like the things that we do marry, which

is the legal pieces and talking about the sort of weaponization and how contextual it is.

But for what?

And that's where this is so incredible and so important, because for people who are

rightly are concerned about how AI is going to be used going forward and what it unleashes.

And there's lots of good dedication unleashed for sure, but it's a little like genetic

engineering.

There's so much good that can happen, but there also are ways it can be misused.

And here you have the company itself flagging that.

And that's the thing that no matter what people, you don't have to like or dislike anthropic

to feel that we shouldn't have AI doing lethal autonomous warfare without human oversight.

And we should not have AI doing mass surveillance of Americans without sort of any legal basis

or restrictions, et cetera.

You really don't have to have any feeling about the company to be concerned about that.

And that's what I think you're saying and what I'm saying.

That's one of the things that's so important about this.

Absolutely.

And I could go on because you and I were in the national security space.

And we both remember the Edward Stade and the revolution that there was this program called

215 where hundreds and hundreds of millions of telephone records of the United States

were being scooped up and when the public learned of it, there was this huge backlash

about the propriety of it.

Even if you weren't questioning the gality of it, it was like, well, wait, what were

you doing?

This shares someone's judgment was off and it ultimately was sunset it.

Let's just say that's maybe the polite term.

And so here, that's what this is shining a light on.

And that's what's so interesting about this lawsuit.

So again, it's in our show notes, we'll put the California case, which I think is just

super readable.

And if they won't read that, but we certainly are going to keep an eye on that for you.

And we'll continue following what happens both in DC and in California.

Mary, I'm going to go because it's almost champagne time getting an early start.

Never too early on your birthday, I agree.

So thanks everyone for listening.

And remember, you can subscribe to MSNAP Premium on Apple Podcasts to get this show and

other MSNOW originals, add free.

And you'll also get subscriber only, bonus content like our recent premium episode on voting

integrity heading into the midterms this fall.

This podcast is produced by Vicki Borgollina and Danny Holloway.

Our associate producer is Rana Shabazi, Greg Devin's The Second and Hazik bin Amad Farad

are our audio engineers, Katie Lau is our senior manager of audio production.

Naisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNOW Audio.

Search for main justice wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.

What do the steam engine electricity and AI have in common?

These technologies not only change how we work, they can transform entire economies.

I'm Stephanie Wong, host of Wear the Internet Lives, a podcast from Google and Latitude Studios

about the unseen world of data centers.

Explore how data centers are unlocking growth in every sector of the economy.

From agriculture to medicine to manufacturing, data centers are powering a new era of AI

innovation.

To Wear the Internet Lives wherever you get your podcasts.